Show description

He believed it was representation that distinguished American expansion from European colonialism. A great many anti-­ imperialists agreed with Vest’s rationale. They, too, did not criticize nineteenth-­century expansion as imperialism. Vest and like-­minded anti-­imperialists believed the Treaty of Paris marked the end of this precedent. 5 Should the Treaty pass, Vest claimed, the ramifications would be significant. He told the Senate it would mark the inevitable demise of free republican institutions and domestic liberties and would lead to arbitrary—­even tyrannical—­rule.

38 He sympathized with the sentiment of Caffery and Hoar, but argued it was unnecessary to consult the text of the Constitution or any legal precedents. Instead, Mason insisted—­ along with Ohio Republicans Mark Hanna and Joseph Foraker who made similar contentions—­that acquisition was a question of legislative policy. Mason rejected Platt’s notion of “unlimited sovereignty” and agreed that Hoar and Caffery were right to indicate the importance of statehood, but that such an act of bestowing representation can only be granted through legislating.

31 The first published address encouraged the establishment of local and regional Leagues outside of Boston resulting in the founding of a League office in Washington to directly petition the government to enroll members. The response to the first publication went far beyond Washington, though. Within three months prominent men and women swelled the League’s list of vice presidents from the original 18 to 41. ”32 By the summer of 1898 there were ten League branches in total and membership had swollen to hundreds of thousands.